CHAP. V.

SInce I first began the examination of this Book, I have been under some temptations to doubt whether the Author of it really designed to serve the interest of those of the Church of Rome in the writing of it, or by a seeming defence of their Ido∣latry, intended onely to shew how little he could say in their behalf, and to give us an occasion by Answering his Arguments to convince the World upon what just Grounds we advance that Charge against them.

It does indeed a little startle me when I consider how base a thing it is, and unbecoming the Cha∣racter of a Christian, to put on onely an appearance of Zeal in behalf of a Party, to whom it must be confess'd he has been highly Obliged, and whom therefore if he could not serve, yet at least he ought not to have betray'd. But then it seems to be some∣thing worse, I do not now say for a Christian, but for a Bishop that has not yet quitted either the Re∣venues or the Communion of the Church of England, nor retracted the subscription he once made of this very charge of Idolatry against those for whom he would now be thought to plead; to revile that Church which nourishes him, and whose Opinions we must Page  75 suppose him to hold, till we see him as formally re∣nounce them, as ever he once subscribed to them. And if on the one hand he seems to shew a great deal of bitterness against us in his Expressions, yet on the other, it must be confessed his Arguments are so extremely civil as not to carry so much as the appearance of Reason in them. And few of the Romanists have ever undertaken this cause, that have not said a great deal more in their own defence, than this Amphibious Advocate has offer'd for them.

But whether this Author designed to expose them or us or himself onely, as I am not much concern'd to know, so neither will I undertake to determine. This is plain, that had he meant to ridicule the Church of Rome never so much, he could not have taken a more effectual way of doing it. And whe∣ther our Nobility do, or can, or ought to understand * Transubstantiation or no, yet I am sure men of much meaner capacities than those Honourable Personages for the most part are, will be able to discern the truth of this remark. And that he must indeed have thought them not onely uncapable of judging * of Abstruse propositions, but even destitute of Com∣mon sense and reason, if he hoped to impose such discourse as this upon them for Arguing.

Now to make this appear, I shall need onely de∣sire the Reader to observe with me these two things:

I. That the position he undertakes to defend is, that the notion of Idolatry in holy Scripture is nei∣ther MORE nor LESS than this.

II. That to prove this, it is not sufficient to shew, that this is Idolatry, or that the Jews did sometimes fall into it: But it must be shewn that they never committed any other Idolatry; and particularly that this was the Idolatry of the Golden-Calf, and of the Calves of Dan, and Bethel. For though the worship of the Heavenly Bodies, (as the Author represents it) were one sort of Idolatry, yet if the Scripture has charged the Jews with this Guilt for any other worship, wherein they did not adore the Sun, Moon and Stars, or any other visible and Corporeal Deity as the Supreme God, it will then follow that this, which is alledged, cannot be the ONELY Notion of * Idolatry, and it must be false to assert, that Idola∣try according to the word of God is neither MORE * nor LESS than this.

Now from these two remarks onely, it will pre∣sently appear what slender pretences some men will take up with to run out into the most excessive cla∣mours against those whom they oppose. For, 1st. As to what he so largely insists upon, as if there were something very important at the bottom of it, viz. That the Jews were a people prone to Idolatry, * and that the design of God throughout the whole Law, was to preserve them from it, though it be a great truth, yet it is certainly in this place a great imper∣tinence. Seeing neither do we deny this, nor can he make any use of it, in establishing his true and onely notion of Idolatry. For I hope he did not in∣tend to argue thus, The Jews were very prone to Ido∣latry, and God intended his Law to restrain them Page  77 from it; Therefore Idolatry is neither more nor less, than the worship of the Heavenly bodies, the Sun, Moon and Stars, as the Supreme Deity.

2dly. It will from hence appear, that all those pas∣sages of Holy Scripture, where God charges the Jews with worshiping other Gods, with serving the Hoast of Heaven, &c. conclude nothing, seeing it is confessed that they did fall into this Idolatry too; but that does not hinder but that they may have fallen into some other besides; and we are assured that so they did; nay, that they were suffered by God to fall into this, as a punishment for having committed the other, so St. Stephen expresly tells us, Acts 7. 41, 42. They made a Calf in those days, and offered Sacrifice to the Idol, and rejoyced in the work of their hands. THEN God gave them up to worship the Hoast of Heaven.

Nor is it any more to the purpose, 3dly, to prove * that the Scripture says, that to worship the Sun and Moon is Idolatry; unless he could find out some Text where it adds, that they who worshiped the Sun and Moon, worshiped them as visible and Corporeal Dei∣ties with the Honor due to the Supreme God; and so as to exclude all sense and apprehension of a spiri∣tual and invisible Godhead, and that this is the true and onely Idolatry. But now this which was the onely point in question, he has prudently forgot, and whilst he lives will never be able to prove it.

In short if there be any thing more than noise and shew in what he has said, it must be in his Account of the two points before consider'd. viz. The Golden-Calf and the Calves of Dan and of Bethel: For as for the Brazen-Serpent and the honor paid to that, he is as silent as if there had been no such thing in his Bible.

Page  78 For the former of these, the Golden-Calf, he ex∣patiates very much, but sure never were Words put together with less pertinence than here. The thing to be proved is, that the Jews intended by this Calf * to worship the Egyptian Apis or Serapis or Osyris, that is, the Sun as the Supreme Deity.

But how does he go about to prove this. First, He learnedly shews that the Apis whom the Egyp∣tians worshiped was not the King of the Argives, nor Son to Jupiter. And this I think may be foreign enough to what we are seeking, which is the design of the Jews in setting up the Golden-Calf. Secondly, He assures us 'tis much more propable that the Greeks borrowed the very word Apis from the Egyptians. * And thereupon he takes occasion to make a Learned reflexion upon our Translation of Jer. 46. 15. which it may be was one of the passages for which he has been wont to censure our version with as little Mo∣desty as Understanding. For to say no more of it than this, if we have rendred this Verse amiss we have erred not onely with all the Learned Versions the Syriack, the Chaldee Paraphrase, and even the Vulgar Latin it self, but with the Original Hebrew too; and in all which there is this onely Difference, that what they call Valiant in one Number, we ren∣der Valiant Men in the other. And all this is still as impertinent to the Point in hand, as any thing can well be imagined to be.

And yet from this, Thirdly, He boldly infers,

First, That this is at best but a plausible presump∣tion, and such as if compared with the reasons I have alledged to the contrary, will not be thought to de∣serve the name of an Argument. For,

Secondly, Whereas this Author (always positive * if that might pass for proof) says, that there could be no other ground of this joy than that they were restored to the worship of their old Gods; I would fain know how he comes to be assured of this? I am confident were it fit to establish a Principle of this moment upon the sandy Foundation of our own Con∣jectures, one might be able to find out other reasons for it. For why might they not have had just cause of rejoycing to behold a Symbol of their own God set up amongst them, as well as if it had been a figure of an Egyptian Idol? what if despairing of Moses's re∣turn to them, as they design'd this Symbol to supply his place, to direct them in their journey, and to be an Oracle at which they might continually enquire God's pleasure, so they testified some transports of joy upon the erecting of it? Nay but,

Page  80 Thirdly, What if we should say that we cannot discern any such extraordinary joy, more than what the Solemnity of a Feast Dedicated to the JEHOV AH for the setting up of a visible Symbol of his presence amongst them might very well warrant? The case in short was this; Moses delay'd to come down from the Mount, the people were impatient to continue on their Journey towards the Promised Land; but how to learn God's pleasure they knew not, and for this purpose they cryed unto Aaron, that he would make them a God to go before them; such as very probably they had seen in Egypt, and which might serve instead of an Oracle unto them. This Aaron makes, and for the Dedication of it appoints a Feast unto the Lord, and offers such Sacrifices as God indeed required, but which this Author himself confesses were an Abomination to the Egyptians: And upon the occasion of this Feast it was that it is said, They rejoyced in the works of their hands. Acts 7. 41. And again, The people sate down to eat and drink and rose up to play, 1 Cor. 10. 7. And what this joy was we find particularly expressed, Exod. 32. 19. They were singing, and dancing before the Calf. Now all this was very natural on such an occasion; and what ever sin they committed in it, yet I cannot see any ne∣cessity there is to conclude that there could be no other ground for such a joy than their returning to the Idols of Egypt. And the Arguments I have before given clearly shew that whatever it• was, it could not be that, seeing that the whole Solemnity was consecra∣ted to the JEHOV AH, and performed in a manner utterly inconsistent with the Egyptian Idolatry.

Page  81 As for the Calves of Dan and Bethel, our Author has (if possible) yet less to say against their being the Symbols of the God of Israel, than he had in the for∣mer Case. He produces onely the Learned Visorius * to prove that Monceius was mistaken in imagining that Jeroboam set up these Calves in imitation of Solo∣mon's Cherubim. But now this is not our question, whether the Calves were made in imitation of the Cherubim, but whether the God of Israel, or the Gods of Egypt were worshiped by the Ten Tribes at Dan and Bethel? And yet without saying one pertinent word, he concludes, with as good Assurance as if he had made a demonstration of it;

One thing indeed there is that may seem to deserve an Answer, and that is, why the people for three whole years did not comply with him, if he kept up the old Religion that had been established under Da∣vid and Solomon? But now this is a gross Mistake in a person that would be thought so Learned in the Scrip∣tures. The people did comply very readily with Je∣roboam, and were far from refusing for any such time as is pretended. And that passage to which this Au∣thor must, I suppose, refer 2 Chron. 11. 17. is spoken not of the Israelites, but of the Kingdom of Judah; namely, that for three years they walked in the way of David and Solomon.

And now let any reasonable man consider what a pitifull Vindication is this, to support so much Cla∣mour and confidence? And how must all men of sense, even in the Roman Communion despise such tri∣fling Page  82 after what they have seen their own Dr. Godden perform upon this very subject? The truth is we ought to give that Learned Man his due. He has said what was to be said to excuse his Church from Idolatry; and his performance shews that he wanted nothing but a better Cause to have acquitted himself to every one's satisfaction. But he had a hard Mi∣stress to serve, and he was not unsensible of it. But for this new Advocate his Arguments are as much short of the Doctor's, as his assurance is greater. There the D. of Paul's found something worthy his consideration, but here is nothing but a great noise, and a great deal of Anger and Scorn, without any just oc∣casion, though in such a Case the Cause ought to be very plain. In short, I cannot imagine any other effect this Discourse can possibly have than to raise the Credit of Dr. Godden's; and after whom it is indeed a bold undertaking for another to engage: for could this Point have been defended, he was the Person that of any other seems to have been the most likely to have done it. But he too has fail'd, and because his performance was good, considering the matter of it, the worth of the man argues the badness of the Cause, and the impossibility of defending it.